51 S.E.2d 851 | Ga. | 1949
1. Where the commission of a robbery is otherwise shown, possession of stolen goods shortly after the commission thereof, if not satisfactorily explained or accounted for, will furnish the basis for a verdict of guilty against the person so found in possession, and the question of whether the explanation of the possession offered by the defendant in his statement alone, that he found the property, is a satisfactory explanation, is a question for the jury.
(a) There was sufficient evidence to authorize the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge, and the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial based on the general grounds alone will not be disturbed.
Under our law the defendant's statement shall have such force only as the jury may think right to give it; they may believe it in part or reject it in part; they may believe it all or reject it all; and the jury was not bound to accept this explanation of the possession of the watch by the defendant. In McAfee v.State,
There was sufficient evidence, exclusive of the alleged confession of the defendant, to authorize the verdict, and the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial based on the general grounds alone will not be disturbed.
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.